Diagrammatic Literacy in Secondary Science Education

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Marco Kragten ; Wilfried Admiraal ; Gert Rijlaarsdam
• 关键词：Diagram ; Literacy ; Science ; Familiarity
• 刊名：Research in Science Education
• 出版年：2013
• 出版时间：October 2013
• 年：2013
• 卷：43
• 期：5
• 页码：1785-1800
• 全文大小：303KB
• 参考文献：1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). / Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.
  2. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: a conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. / Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-98. CrossRef
  3. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. T. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. / Cognitive Science, 27(4), 669-81. CrossRef
  4. Bezemer, J., & Kress, G. (2008). Writing in multimodal texts: a social semiotic account of designs for learning. / Writing Communications, 25(2), 166-95. CrossRef
  5. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P., & Brown, A. (1995). Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies—investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem-solving. / Cognition and Instruction, 13, 221-52. CrossRef
  6. Bloom, B. S., Krathwohl, D. R., & Masia, B. B. (1956). / Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: McKay.
  7. Bowen, G. M., & Roth, W. (2002). Why students may not learn to interpret scientific inscriptions. / Research in Science Education, 32, 303-27. CrossRef
  8. Butcher, K. R. (2006). Learning from text with diagrams: Promoting mental model development and inference generation. / Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 182-97. CrossRef
  9. Campbell, N. A., & Reece, J. B. (2002). / Biology (6th ed.). San Francisco: Pearson Education.
  10. Canham, M., & Hegarty, M. (2010). Effects of knowledge and display design on comprehension of complex graphics. / Learning and Instruction, 20, 155-66. CrossRef
  11. Carlson, R., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). Learning and understanding science instructional material. / Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 629-40. CrossRef
  12. Chittleborough, G., & Treagust, D. (2008). Correct interpretation of chemical diagram requires transforming from one level of representation to another. / Research in Science Education, 38, 463-82. CrossRef
  13. Cook, M., Wiebe, E. N., & Carter, G. (2008). The influence of prior knowledge on viewing and interpreting graphics with macroscopic and molecular representations. / Science Education, 92, 848-67. CrossRef
  14. Cromley, J. G., Snyder-Hogan, L. E., & Luciw-Dubas, U. A. (2009). Cognitive activities in complex science text and diagrams. / Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 59-4. CrossRef
  15. Crowe, A., Dirks, C., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2008). Biology in bloom: implementing Bloom’s Taxonomy to enhance student learning in biology. / Life Sciences Education, 7, 368-81. CrossRef
  16. Frazier, P., Tix, A., & Barron, K. (2004). Testing moderator and mediator effects in counseling psychology research. / Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 115-34. CrossRef
  17. Gilbert, J. K. (2005). Visualization: a metacognitive skill in science education. In J. K. Gilbert (Ed.), / Visualization in science education (pp. 9-7). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRef
  18. Guthrie, J. T., Shelley, W., & Kimmerly, N. (1993). Searching documents: cognitive processes and deficits in understanding graphs, tables, and illustrations. / Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 186-21. CrossRef
  19. Hardy, M. A. (1993). / Regression with dummy variables. Newbury Park: Sage.
  20. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1989). Understanding machines form text and diagrams. In H. Mandl & J. Levin (Eds.), / Knowledge acquisition from text and pictures (pp. 171-94). Amsterdam: North Holland.
  21. Heiser, J., & Tversky, B. (2006). Arrows in comprehending and producing mechanical diagram. / Cognitive Science, 30, 581-92. CrossRef
  22. Holliday, W. G., Brunner, L. L., & Donais, E. L. (1977). Differential cognitive and affective responses to flow diagrams in science. / Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 129-38. CrossRef
  23. Hoyle, R. H., Harris, M. J., & Judd, C. M. (2002). / Research methods in social relations. USA: Wadsworth.
  24. Kindfield, A. C. H. (1993). Biology diagrams: tools to think with. / The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(1), 1-6. CrossRef
  25. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: an overview. / Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-18. CrossRef
  26. Larkin, J., & Simon, H. (1987). Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. / Cognitive Science, 11, 65-9. CrossRef
  27. Lowe, R. K. (1996). Background knowledge and the construction of a situational representation from a diagram. / European Journal of Psychology of Education, 11(4), 377-97. CrossRef
  28. Mathai, S., & Ramadas, J. (2009). Visuals and visualisation of human body systems. / International Journal of Science Education, 31(3), 439-58. CrossRef
  29. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth ten thousand words? / Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 715-26. CrossRef
  30. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. / Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312-20. CrossRef
  31. Paivio, A. (1990). / Mental representations. A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossRef
  32. Raedts, M., Rijlaarsdam, G., Van Waes, L., & Daems, F. (2007). Observational learning through video-based models: impact on student’s writing accuracy of self-efficacy beliefs, task knowledge and writing performances. In P. Boscolo & S. Hidi (Eds.), / Studies in writing, 20. Writing and motivation (pp. 219-38). Oxford: Elsevier.
  33. Sch?nborn, K. J., Anderson, T. R., & Grayson, D. J. (2002). Student difficulties with the interpretation of a textbook diagram of immunoglobulin G (IgG). / Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 30(2), 93-7. CrossRef
  34. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. / Learning and Instruction, 4, 295-12. CrossRef
  35. Winn, W. D. (1982). The role of diagrammatic representation in learning sequences, identification, and classification as a function of verbal and spatial ability. / Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19, 79-9. CrossRef
  36. Winn, W. D. (1988). Recall of the pattern, sequence, and names of concepts presented in instructional diagrams. / Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 25(5), 375-86. CrossRef
  37. Winn, W. D. (1991). Learning from maps and diagrams. / Educational Psychology Review, 3(3), 211-47. CrossRef
  38. Winn, W. D. (1993). An account of how readers search for information in diagram. / Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 162-85. CrossRef
  39. Winn, W. D., & Sutherland, S. W. (1989). Factors influencing the recall of elements in maps and diagrams and the strategies used to encode them. / Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 33-9. CrossRef
  40. Winn, W. D., Li, T.-Z., & Schill, D. E. (1991). Diagram as aids to problem solving: their role in facilitating search and computation. / Educational Technology Research and Development, 39, 17-9. CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Marco Kragten (1)
  Wilfried Admiraal (2)
  Gert Rijlaarsdam (1)
  
  1. Research Institute of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht 130, Amsterdam, 1018, VZ, The Netherlands
  2. ICLON Leiden University Graduate School of Teaching, Wassenaarseweg 62A, Leiden, 2333, AL, The Netherlands
  
• ISSN：1573-1898

文摘

Students in secondary science education seem to have difficulties with understanding diagrams. The present study focused on explanatory factors that predict students-difficulties with process diagrams, i.e., diagrams that describe a process consisting of components that are related by arrows. From 18 compulsory national Biology exams of secondary school pre-university students, all process diagram tasks (n--4) were included in corpus. Features of the task, student, and diagram were related to the difficulty of that particular task, indicated by the cohort mean exam score. A hierarchical regression analysis showed main effects for (1) the cognitive task demand, (2) the familiarity of the components, and (3) the number of components in a diagram. All these main effects were in the expected direction. We also observed interactions. Within the category of tasks with a high cognitive demand, tasks about a diagram of which students have low prior content knowledge were more difficult than tasks about a diagram of which students have high prior content knowledge. Tasks with a high cognitive demand about a diagram with familiar arrows were, surprisingly, more difficult than tasks with a high cognitive demand about a diagram with unfamiliar arrows. This latter finding might be attributed to compensation for task difficulty by the large number of components in the diagrams involved. The final model explained 46?% of the variance in exam scores. These results suggest that students have difficulties (1) with tasks that require a deeper understanding when the content is new, (2) with diagrams that use unfamiliar component conventions, and (3) with diagrams that have a small number of components and are therefore probably more abstract.